“Life,the Universe and Everything”











GOD AND INFINITY

 

Is God an infinite being?  As the great Pantheist/Buddhist thinker Brett Neichin once  put  it,  “when  you  point  to  something  that  isn’t  God,  you’ve  just  limited  God.” If  God  and  his  creation  are  totally  separate,  one  would  wonder  where  God  ends  and  his  creation  begins.  If  God  is  at  point  X,  and  the  body  of  an  object/person  ABC  is  at  point  Y,  then  God  is  limited.

 

A  way  to  argue  this  point  would  be,  if  this  is  true,  it  also  means  that  Osama  Bin  Laden  is  God,  that  drugs  are  part  of  God,  that  excrement  is  part  of  God,  that  poisonous  plants  are  part  of  God,  et  cetera.  To theists this seems wholly absurd and unthinkable.  One  theist  might  ask  “so  you  really  think  Osama  Bin  Laden  is  God?”  The answer is “No.  I don’t believe God exists”.  However,  if  we  are  going  to  claim  the  existence  of  an  unlimited  being,  we  must  be  consistent.  If  the  being  is  at  one  point,  and  not  another,  he/she/it  is  limited.  To  be  truly  unlimited,  the  being  must  be  in  all  things,  and  be  all  things. The  concept  of  God  being  unlimited  is  also  weakened  by  the  idea  that  the  believers  will  be  able  to  see  God  after  judgment  day.  If  God  can  be  seen,  then  that  means  he  has  a  shape,  volume,  color,  and  is  thus  limited.  There  is  also  the  concept  of  God’s  throne,  which  seems  very  physical,  thus   if  God  is  sitting  at  a  given  point,  at  a  given  time,  He  has  very  physical  characteristics,  and  is  limited.

 

Thus,  every  inch  of  our  entire  universe  must  be  a  part  of  God  if  he  is  truly  infinite.  However,  the  problem  with  that  is,  things  within  our  universe  change,  and  it  would  seem  that  change,  as  was  pointed  out  by  Aristotle  long  ago,  negates  perfection.  The  point  of  all  this  is  to  show  the   absurd   nature  of  the  concept  of  an  unlimited  being.

 

PROOF OF GOD’S EXISTENCE

Can  you  prove  the  existence  of  God  rather  than  just  claiming  it?  The  most  popular  argument  used  by  theists  to  argue this question  is  the  design  argument  (as  they  can  only  put  forward  arguments.  No proof of his existence has yet been put forward.) The  basic  (and  wholly  circular)  design  argument  from  theists  goes  something  to  the  effect  of  “if  something  as  complex  as  life  wasn’t  created  by  God,  then  how  was  it  made?  Did it just pop out of thin air?” By  the  above  argument,  you  are  simply  asserting  that  the  world  is  designed  and  that  God  is  the  designer.  This is NOT a proof.

 

Another  argument  is  that  every  thing  has  a  cause,  and  it  is  impossible  to  have  an  infinite  regress  of  causes (this  assertion  has  yet  to  be  proven),  and  thus  God  is  the  first  cause  (another  baseless  assertion). Once  again,  it  runs  along  the  lines  of  “if  God  didn’t  create  the  universe,  who  did?”  The  problem  with  this  is  that  it  is  never  proven  that  God  is  this  alleged  first  cause.  We  could  just  the  same  state  that  all  things  need  a  cause,  and  thus  wonder  “what  caused  God?”  The  supporters  of  this  argument  want  us  to  just  accept  the  premise  that  God  is  the  first  cause,  and  does  not  Himself  need  a  cause,  which  is  a  case  of  special  pleading,  i.e.  a  fallacy.

A  counter – example  to  prove  that  God’s  existence  can  never  be  proven  unless  he  actually  reveals  himself :

(1) If  there  are  presents  under  my  tree,  Santa  Claus  exists.

(2) There are presents under my tree.

 ————————————————————————-

(3) Santa Claus exists.

The above argument is perfectly valid.

 

Now  suppose  I  used  this  argument,  and  pointed  to  actual  presents  under  my  tree.  Would this be proof that Santa Claus exists?  Despite  the  fact  that  it  is  a  valid  argument,  this  is  not  a  proof  for  Santa  Claus’  existence  and  the  argument  is  hence  unsound.  To  understand  why,  one  would  need  a  basic  knowledge  of  sentential  logic.

 

P = “There are presents under my tree”.

S = “Santa Claus exists.”

 

I  will  now  construct  a  Logical  Truth  Table  for  all  the  possibilities:

 

                              P

                                   S

                              T

                                   T

                              T

                                   F

                              F

                                   T

                              F

                                   F

 

These are all the possible “truths” for these two statements.  Now note the second line.  It  is  possible  for  presents  to  be  under  my  tree,  and  it  is  also  possible  for  Santa  to  not  exist.  Thus, according to sentential logic, P does not imply S.  That  is  the  reason  that  the  perfectly  valid  argument  does  not  prove  Santa’s  existence.  Anytime  that  you  claim  that  a  totally  ambiguous  and  unobservable  entity  (“Santa  Claus,”  “God,”  “the Pink Unicorn,”  et cetera)  exists,  and  try  to  prove  it  pointing  to  something  common,  it  can  be  argued  that  the  existence  of  the  common  thing  does  not  automatically  imply  the  existence  of  the  baseless  and/or  undefined  thing  you  are  trying  to  prove.

 

Complex  life  forms  and  the  very  existence  of  the  universe  does  not  imply  God’s  existence.

 

The  following  argument  is  the  outline  of  all  proofs  for  God’s  existence:

(1) If X, then God exists.

(2) X.

——————————–

(3) God exists.

 

While this argument is logically valid, it does not prove that God exists because X does not necessarily imply God’s existence, thus the first premise is erroneous. This is why every argument for God’s existence can be shot down so easily.

 

To this point I have, in my opinion, discredited the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited God, and I have also shown why all arguments for his existence are somewhat fallacious. At this point, emotion comes in, and some theists might say that they feel God deep in their heart. A sincere gut feeling is not proof of anything, as many people sincerely believe many things, and many of these sincere beliefs contradict one another. Some theists might say that they can’t imagine a world without God. What is the point of life if God does not exist? I wonder what is the point of life either way.



Rohini says:

“What is the point of life if God does not exist? I wonder what is the point of life either way.”
Ah. One could take a nihilistic stance and repudiate the real existence of ANYthing.
The existentialist could believe in the uniqueness of each human existence in freely making its self-defining choices. Each to his/her own y’know. But then again existentialism can be atheistic or Christian. Aah ok it’s getting hard to drive at something. I think I’m moving round in circles now. :P Ok bye for now.



hahah…

Interesting…Its good to see you questioning things :)

“What is the point of life?” — Now that could bring to a totally new discussion all together..



Leave a Reply

et cetera